instead of dismantling the state or private property first, why don't you dismantle money?
money is what keeps the state in power which protects private property. destroy money and the rest will follow.
but as long as there is money, nothing you do about the state or private property matters.
GOOD LUCK :^)
Go make some businesses that don't function off money and don't need to "compete" in the market :^) :^)
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Money arises naturally as a means of making barter more convenient. You'll never get rid of money no matter how hard you try.
...
...
Wrong. Money is a debt counter. Debt is product of a society based on private property.
that's a regurgitated reflex, not a sensible rebuttal to lecture/argument posted.
You get what you deserve.
Money is a method to allocate wealth. It is not inherently evil as a tool.
Stop being retarded, OP. You can't dismantle money until you remote the need for its use, which requires either post scarcity or a massive restructuring, which requires socialism.
Money is not a "tool" like a fishing rod, it is a social ritual. There is no true resource value or direct use with a paper bill, rather it has an artificial value that humans believe in.
Its not a ritual, it can be ritualized.
Yes and?
Ok let's start from the bottom.
Division of labor. Without it, you'll need to farm your own wheat, make your own bread, grow your own tomatos, potatos and cannabis, and care for your own cow and chickens.
Dividing that labor up (you take care of the chickens, I take care of the wheat) allows specialization and essentially raises the efficiency of the group as a whole, allowing more products with less work for everyone (if work is divided right, but that's another story)
To keep things fair, they try to trade everything in an equal way, one sack of grain for a chicken, etc.
But the guy with the cow needs a lot more wheat, which means that the wheat farmer gets a lot more cow meat than he needs compared with the guys with the tomatos and potatos.
So this can be fixed by the guy bartering the cow meat off with them for tomatos and potatos, sure.
But with any community of significant size, this constant need to trade and trade and trade again becomes really inefficient, and the need for it can completely disappear with a simple invention:
A non-decaying catalyst of exchange of goods. Aka money. Gold used to be what was used, but more fiduciar alternatives were apparently better for some reason.
I can say much else than whatever already has said, we need either massive restructuring, which might fail, and probably needs a lot of computer code, or post-scarcity.
On a different note, what would Holla Forums feel on a webm series explaining basic economics from all viewpoints I can find, taking into account whatever is related. It could really help with arguing against educated libertarians and ancaps, but I want to know how much value you people would extract from it.
So obviously, it'll be easy to refute it
…a system that removes the need for informal barter precludes the need for its replacement with monetary exchange.
breedy gud idea
I saw a webm the other day of Wolff talking about ex employee of silicon Valley making their own enterprises akin to coops. Shame i didn't save it.
1) Because money is what makes the capitalist economy work and the only way to function without it would be to isolate yourself economically like some kind of retarded hippie commune
2) Because "evolutionary socialism" doesn't work. If it gets big enough to become a real threat to capital, it's either corrupted, sabotaged or violently put down. Building socialism will necessarily involve the destruction of capitalism.
right but there is no historical evidence of this ever actually happening. Or at least not in that manner.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
...
But money is exactly this: a commodity you can efficiently trade, and trade and trade again.
The problem is: trade itself has become inefficient. That's why we need to get rid of it. Aka socialism.
you can't trade if private property cannpt be enforced by violence with the approval of the state
But it can be used as an acounting mecanism helping to build communism, assuming that the means of production are public owned and guided by a central plan(not so fast "market socialists").
Oh, you mean State Capitalism!
...
I am, kind of, I hope?
I sure as fuck made a lot fiat, lmao
Its kinda funny and ironic when you have more shekels stashed away than a "responsible" member of society, despite the fact that you are a burnout with no marketable skills. Kinda underlines that this shit is all rigged yo
anyhow, get some btc, thank me later
there are many
honor, loyalty, word as your bond
these concepts exist and function without a need for money